Head Coverings?
Why Wear a Head Covering
There are few things that stand out in our culture today more than a woman wearing a head covering. Depending on where you live in the country, you may associate it with the Amish, Mennonites, Muslims, or some other religion. However, among some Evangelical Christians, head coverings for women are becoming popular.
So why do Christian women wear head coverings? Many Christian households have come under the conviction that the instruction found in 1 Corinthians 11 for women to wear head coverings is both applicable and beneficial for them and those around them. In an effort to obey God and honor their husbands, many women are returning to this ancient practice.
We must acknowledge upfront that this is a controversial subject. The goal of this article isn't to convince you of anything; it's simply to explain the convictions some Christians have and to explore some common objections. There's a lot to look at, so let's jump right in.
Text and Context
The one place in Scripture where instruction regarding head covering is found is in the Apostle Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth.
Paul wrote this instruction (along with many others) to a church in crisis. Besides being a young church facing bitter internal divisions, Corinth was the "sin city" of the first-century Greco-Roman world. It was the center of wealth, commerce, slavery, idolatry, sexual immorality, and every vice available at the time. So much so that Corinth was home to the Temple of Aphrodite, which boasted of its 1,000 cult prostitutes, available as a free public service to assist in "worship."
The bulk of Paul's letter was divided into two major sections. In the first half, he addressed the divisions and disunity that plagued the church. In the second half, he answered a number of questions they had sent to him through messengers. What we read in Chapter 11 is from this latter section where he was directly responding to them. Unfortunately, their specific question has been lost to us today. We've been left to infer, based on what he writes and what we know of the general conditions on the ground in Corinth.
And, all things considered, it's not all that hard. While a sizable Jewish population existed in Corinth, the majority of the Christians in the city would have been Greek by ethnicity and Roman by political affiliation. Corinth, a city famous for its wickedness, would have had church members recently removed from a host of pagan practices. The Apostle Paul puts it this way:
People today often criticize churches as being filled with hypocrites and liars. Here was a church filled with new believers whose lives were formerly marked by fornication, idolatry, adultery, perversions (effeminacy), homosexuality, theft, greed, drunkenness, and all sorts of other sins. And keep in mind, Paul wrote this letter less than five years after bringing them the gospel for the first time.
All that to say, concerns of modesty, good order, and godly hierarchy would have been matters mostly foreign to them. If you read the description of Corinth and thought it sounded too similar for comfort to modern-day America, you're right. Hopefully none of the wickedness that Paul describes is true of the Church today, but we are surrounded by it.
Principle and Practice
Based on their situation and something the Corinthian believers wrote to him, the Apostle Paul felt compelled to write to them here in Chapter 11 about a principle and a practice. The principle is godly hierarchy.
Now, all the various ways in which this hierarchy (God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman) applies can't be fully fleshed out in this article. The important thing to understand here is that God has ordained a hierarchy—an ordering of the world. While the Father and Christ are both co-equal members of the Godhead, Jesus submits to the will of the Father. (For more on the Trinitarian nature of God, check out our article linked here.) In a similar manner, God has established a hierarchy for husbands and wives such that, while they are still equally valuable in the sight of God, a man is meant to exercise loving authority over his wife. The woman is not to be a servile and oppressed slave, but out of honor, respect, and love, she is to submit to her husband. This is the principle that Paul wants them to understand.
Everything else Paul has to say in this passage is based upon this principle he's communicated in verse 3. In other words, because of the doctrine of godly hierarchy, men and women ought to do something. What is it that they should (or should not) do?
To be fair, the practice that Paul is advocating for isn't popular or common in our culture. Many find little or no value in it. However, he is clearly communicating that:
From this, we might assume he wants men to not disgrace their head by wearing something while praying or prophesying.
Furthermore:
Just as Paul wants men not to disgrace their head (which is Christ—see verse 3) by wearing a head covering, he similarly wants women not to disgrace their head (which is their husband—see verse 3) by not wearing something on their heads.
Principle and practice.
Again, this just seems odd in our culture. Let's face it: as things stand today, it is odd. Except we've hung on to the tradition of men removing their hats before prayers or significant moments like singing the national anthem or saying the pledge of allegiance. Apparently, this seemed like an odd practice for the congregation in Corinth (otherwise they'd have been doing it already). Fortunately for them and us, Paul gives them a number of reasons why they should embrace both the principle and practice.
In Defense
In order to prove to his readers the appropriateness of embracing both the principle and practice, Paul provides four reasons. These reasons span from natural observation, which would be obvious to them, to justifications that still baffle many readers today.
Reason 1: Natural Observation
Paul makes the assumption that these Gentile believers would all recognize, based upon general observation, that men and women are set apart by many things, one of them being hair length. Even in this depraved city, men were supposed to look and act like men. Similarly, women were meant to look and act like women. While we might be inclined to bicker with the Apostle about the details, his presupposition (and the presupposition he assumes his readers share) is that men and women don't wear their hair the same.
Some hairstyles are inherently masculine. Some are naturally feminine. And it is disgraceful (an embarrassment) not to abide by those natural distinctions. And in his view, not wearing a head covering violates natural expectations as much as a woman shaving her head.
Reason 2: The Created Order
Paul's second reason isn't based on some common understanding that he assumes they would all share. Perhaps he anticipated someone objecting to the first reason. Therefore, he doesn't stop there.
Here, Paul ties the principle and practice back to the created order. This isn't a modern convention or invention he's arguing for. It's something that goes back to the foundation of the human race. It's timeless, not based on what was popular or even accepted in the first-century Greco-Roman world.
Because God created Eve from and for Adam, a foundational hierarchy between husbands and wives exists. According to Paul, one way that hierarchy is demonstrated is through the use of head coverings.
Reason 3: The Angels
As stated earlier, this reason baffles even many of the Christians who hold to this practice today. What did Paul mean, "because of the angels"?
Some tie this back to Genesis 6 where we read:
Regardless of their position on head coverings, many believe that Genesis 6 is describing angels (the "sons of God") having sexual relations with human women (the "daughters of men"). From that position, some believe the concern over the angels in 1 Corinthians is regarding the possibility of angels being tempted by women whose heads are uncovered. Perhaps that's the case.
Another thought on this is that the "angels" in view are human "angels." The word here translated "angels" is the Greek word angelos, which can simply mean "messenger." If that's the case, perhaps Paul was concerned that the messengers (plural form of angelos) who brought his letter to Corinth would be offended (or tempted) by their lack of head coverings. Again, this might be what he was driving at.
While there may be still more answers, some maintain that the "angels" are in fact heavenly beings, but it's not about their temptation. Instead, some believe that Paul's concern over the angels is that holy spiritual beings are, at times, present during the corporate worship of the saints. If that's so, perhaps they are offended that God's people would disregard something so appropriate for godly women.
Reason 4: Apostolic Instruction
Paul wrote to the church in Corinth sometime around A.D. 55, just twenty-two years after Pentecost. Depending on how you date them, the four Gospel accounts might not have even been written yet. Therefore, "the churches of God" wouldn't have been a widespread, far-flung group of churches under the authority of any number of people.
The "churches of God" Paul was referring to would have been local congregations all founded by, and to some degree under the authority of, apostles. In other words, Paul would have been telling this church that the "practice" he's advocating for is the practice put in place by the apostles in the churches they've planted and serve.
We believe that local churches operate with a lot of individual liberty. When it comes to things like music selection, service times, methods for outreach, preaching styles, and a host of other things, we're convinced that there is latitude when it comes to what is "right." However, Paul tells us that the universal practice of the hand-chosen apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ all did it this way. And if anyone wanted to argue about it, that universality ought to be enough to change their minds.
Objections
Of course, not everyone in the Church today agrees that this practice should be in place today. Some even reject the principle! Let's look at a few of the common arguments against the practice of head coverings.
Objection 1: Principle Only
A common and reasonable objection people raise for the practice of head covering not being expected for Christian women today is that they see this passage as only directly teaching the principle:
Surely, this section of Scripture teaches no less than the principle! However, many reject this objection. When they do, they often do so based on two reasons. First, the overall argument seems to suggest Paul expected the women to actually wear head coverings. The second reason is Paul's statement in verse 16:
Verse 16 is the last thing he has to say on the matter. It's his "closing argument," if you will. And this final word isn't about the principle he wants them to "understand" (v. 3), but about the "practice" all of the churches of God participate in.
Objection 2: Corinth Only
Another common position taken by those who reject this practice is that they see this instruction as being given only to Corinth, based on their particular context (a cultural context not so different from our own).
It's true that the Corinthian church was the only church to receive written instructions about head coverings. If others did, we no longer have those letters.
However, if Paul was correct in verse 16 that this was already the normal practice for "the churches of God," why would it need to be addressed? As you read through the epistles of the Apostles, you'll find that many practices aren't continually addressed. Baptism and communion are notable examples. Do the Apostles give instruction on those practices in all, most, or many of their letters? No. A reasonable explanation for that is because they were doing those things. And it seems like most of them were also wearing head coverings.
For those inclined to agree with the practice of modern head coverings, the argument that this was only applicable to Corinth doesn't seem to hold water.
Objection 3: Hair Only
A final common objection raised about head coverings is found in verses 14–15:
If her hair is a covering, then her hair is her covering being prescribed by Paul's teaching. Enough said, right?
Maybe not.
If a woman's hair is the covering being spoken of throughout this passage, why wouldn't Paul simply instruct women to have long hair? His argument from earlier in the reading is that the lack of a head covering is equally disgraceful as having inappropriately short hair or a shaved head.
Perhaps what Paul means in verse 15 is that a woman's hair is a general covering for her. And while this general covering is a good thing—"a glory to her"—the specific covering she is to wear while praying and prophesying is meant to be a "symbol of authority" (v. 10) and prevent disgrace for her head/husband (v. 5).
Again, for those convinced and convicted regarding head coverings, this objection isn't convincing.
Closing
But what do you think? Are the four reasons presented by Paul—natural order, created order, the angels, and apostolic instruction—convincing?
Or are the three objections—principle only, Corinth only, hair only—more persuasive?
If you are persuaded by Paul's reasons, it's likely that you have many more questions. What did he mean by "while praying or prophesying"? Should she wear it always because we are to "pray without ceasing"? Seriously, what did he mean by "because of the angels"?
Those are all great questions. Let us know in the comments section if you'd like us to address those in greater detail.
If you aren't convinced, how should you be applying the principle of godly hierarchy?
Further Discussion
For a broader exploration of this topic with multiple viewpoints, watch our panel discussion:
Video: Head Coverings - A Conversation on Different Perspectives